It is surreal to consider how different the world has become in three weeks.

As of this morning, more than three million refugees have fled Ukraine since the Russian invasion began on February 24. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech to the US Congress later today “could be [the] most important by a foreign leader since Churchill in 1941.” The leaders of the Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovenia traveled to Kyiv last night to meet with Mr. Zelensky to offer a broad package of support. The White House announced that President Biden will travel to Brussels for a March 24 NATO summit on the invasion. 

The Metropolitan Opera presented a benefit performance Monday night in New York City, with all ticket sales and donations going to support relief efforts in Ukraine. And a Russian television producer courageously interrupted a live TV state media broadcast on Monday to hold up a sign protesting the war. Her actions prompted others to protest; she was found guilty of organizing an illegal protest and fined. 

“World War III may already have arrived” 

It is obvious that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is changing the world far beyond Ukraine. The question is, how much of the world? 

Veronika Melkozerova, a journalist based in Kyiv, writes in the Atlantic, “Every night I close my eyes thinking I might be next on Putin’s death-toll list. Nowadays, you never know where the Russians will drop their bombs—onto a residential building, a kindergarten classroom, a monastery, or a maternity hospital.” She understands that people of the West “are scared of World War III” but adds, “Don’t you understand that World War III may have already arrived?” 

Putin clearly wants to rebuild a new Russian Empire, which could lead him to advance beyond Ukraine into NATO-allied countries and force the US into the conflict. I noted on Monday the growing concern that Russia could use “tactical nuclear weapons” to win its war with Ukraine; that same day, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told reporters, “The prospect of nuclear conflict, once unthinkable, is now back within the realm of possibility.” 

China’s continued escalation of its nuclear capacities only adds to the growing danger. Adm. Charles Richard leads US Strategic Forces, which oversees the military’s nuclear arsenal. He told lawmakers last week, “Today, we face two nuclear-capable near peers who have the capability to unilaterally escalate to any level of violence, in any domain worldwide, with any instrument of national power, at any time.” 

How might God redeem the fears of these days? 

By now your stress level is probably higher than it was when you began reading this article. And we haven’t even considered that the world has now surpassed six million COVID-19 deaths as the US nears one million such tragedies. Vox has reported that “deaths of despair” (suicide, drug overdoses, and alcohol-related liver disease) “amount to the equivalent of a catastrophic pandemic every single year.” And now we are dealing with an enemy that might deploy nuclear weapons with unforeseeable global consequences. 

However, none of this surprises God. He is not reading these words with the same anxiety you and I might be feeling. 

Since I am convinced that the Lord redeems all he allows, I asked myself today how he might redeem the fears of these perilous days. Instantly a simple thought occurred to me: by showing us how deeply we need what only our Father can give. 

It is human nature to depend on human nature. From the first sin in human history to the last sin you and I committed, the common denominator has been the same: we want to be our own god (Genesis 3:5), to be king of our own kingdom. To show us our need for his redemptive grace, God then responds by allowing us the consequences of our misused freedom (cf. Romans 1:24–32). Inevitably, such self-exaltation comes at the expense of others. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is the latest in a line of murderous crimes extending to the dawn of human history (cf. Genesis 4:1–16). 

The defining question of our lives 

Denison Ministries Creative Director Josh Miller has a fascinating new article on our website titled “‘Blessed are the self-sufficient’: How the anti-Beatitudes explain our cultural anxieties.” After exposing the fallacy of living by our culture’s self-sufficient values, he asks, “What kingdom defines your life?” 

This is the defining question of our lives. You and I can seek to advance our own kingdoms, or we can “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” in the assurance that “all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33). 

When we turn our world and our fears over to the true king of the universe, what does he give us in return? Jesus assured us, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid” (John 14:27, my emphasis). 

When we name our fears and trust them specifically and unconditionally to Jesus, we experience more than his help and hope—we experience him. We experience his peace, his joy (Hebrews 12:2), his abundant life (John 10:10). We can say with Paul, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Galatians 2:20). We can experience fully “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27). 

Henri Nouwen observed: 

“We tend to emphasize the distance between Jesus and ourselves. We see Jesus as the all-knowing and all-powerful Son of God who is unreachable for us sinful, broken human beings. But thinking this way, we forget that Jesus came to give us his own life. He came to lift us up into loving community with the Father. Only when we recognize the radical purpose of Jesus’ ministry will we be able to understand the meaning of the spiritual life. Everything that belongs to Jesus is given for us to receive. All that Jesus does we may also do.” 

Do you “understand the meaning of the spiritual life” today? 

Denison Forum

If Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has a face, it is the wounded pregnant woman who was taken on a stretcher from a maternity hospital bombed by Russia last week. Now the Associated Press is reporting that the mother and her baby have died.

Is Putin suffering from dementia? 

How much Ukrainian death and destruction will be enough for Putin? 

Does he want only to remove President Zelensky and install a puppet regime loyal to Moscow similar to the one in Belarus? 

He has already arrested the mayor of the southern city of Melitopol and replaced him with a new “acting mayor” who is urging residents to adjust to “the new reality” and end their resistance to Russian occupation. 

Does he want to control the entire country, making it part of a new Russian Empire as it was part of the old USSR? 

In justifying his invasion of Ukraine, he claimed that the very idea of Ukrainian statehood was a fiction and argued that “modern Ukraine was entirely and fully created by Russia.” 

Are his motives more personal? 

It has been widely noted that Peter the Great (1672–1725), the giant tsar (historians estimate he stood at least six-foot-eight) who is credited with transforming Russia into a feared world power, is Putin’s personal hero. For more on Putin’s military ambitions and personal background, please see Ryan Denison’s excellent new paper, “The inevitability of the Russian invasion of Ukraine: How Putin’s history reveals his destiny.”

Some experts are even wondering if Putin is suffering from dementia, Parkinson’s disease, or “roid rage” from potential cancer treatment that involves heavy steroid use. 

But there is another factor we must consider in seeking to understand Vladimir Putin’s motives for invading Ukraine and threatening the West so perilously. 

Putin’s “spiritual destiny” 

Yesterday we discussed a March 12 article by cultural commentator David French on the threat posed by Russian “tactical nuclear weapons.” Today, we’ll turn to another article by French, this one published on March 13.  

French refers to research by former National Security Agency analyst John Schindler describing an ideological “fusion” between the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and the FSB, Russia’s intelligence service. According to Schindler, Putin does not seek Russian greatness only out of a sense of secular national chauvinism, but also out of religious mission rooted in the ROC. 

Schindler notes that Patriarch Kirill, head of the ROC, considers the “main threat” to Russia to be “the loss of faith” in Western Christianity. ROC spokesmen constantly denounce feminism and LGBTQ activism as Satanic creations of the West that aim to destroy faith, family, and the nation. 

As a result, the ROC believes it has a “spiritual security” mission to defend Russia from Western spiritual influences in partnership with Moscow’s intelligence agencies. French cites Giles Fraser’s article on the British website UnHerd, which states that “Putin regards his spiritual destiny as the rebuilding of Christendom, based in Moscow.” 

Is Moscow the “New Rome”? 

Kyiv is centrally important to this narrative. 

The Russian news agency TASS quotes ROC Archbishop Kirill: “For us Kiev [the Russian spelling of Kyiv] is what Jerusalem is for many. Russian Orthodoxy began there, so under no circumstances can we abandon this historical and spiritual relationship.” The 2019 creation of a new Orthodox Church of Ukraine separated from the ROC further inflamed tensions as the ROC viewed this action as a direct attack on its “canonical territory.” 

We should add this historical note. The Roman Catholic Church is obviously based in Rome. In AD 324, the Roman Emperor Constantine declared the city of Byzantium the new capital of the Roman Empire, renaming it Constantinople and calling it the “New Rome.” When Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Empire in 1453 (and was renamed Istanbul), many in Russia began claiming that Moscow became the “third Rome” and the spiritual heir of Jerusalem. 

French concludes: “Putin has fused Russian identity with the ROC, sees his nation and his church as a bulwark against western decadence, and is now not just attempting to seize his church’s ‘Jerusalem’ but potentially forcibly reuniting his church after a schism it rejects.” 

The peril of transactional religion 

When Christianity is used to advance secular aims, it ceases to be true Christianity. This is true whether these aims are Russian or American, your agendas or mine. 

Transactional religion was dominant in the Greco-Roman world; if a worshiper sacrificed on a god’s altar, the god could be persuaded to do what the worshiper wanted. We do the same when we go to church on Sunday so God will bless us on Monday or give money to the church so God will bless us financially. 

However, Jesus was clear: 

• “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). 
• We are to be “crucified with Christ” (Galatians 2:20), to “present your bodies as a living sacrifice” to our Lord (Romans 12:1). 
• The King of kings and Lord of lords does not exist as a means to our ends. Rather, we exist to glorify him: “To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever” (1 Peter 4:11). 

This mandate should be our daily aim: “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). 

Abraham Lincoln’s “greatest concern” 

Joe Carter noted in First Things that during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was purportedly asked if God was on his side. 

He replied, “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side. My greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.” 

One day, “The earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lᴏʀᴅ as the waters cover the sea” (Habakkuk 2:14). 

How will you hasten that day today?

Denison Forum

Legendary quarterback Tom Brady made global headlines when he retired after his team lost the Super Bowl last month. However, he announced on Twitter last night, “These past two months I’ve realized my place is still on the field and not in the stands.” As a result, he stated, “I’m coming back for my 23rd season in Tampa. Unfinished business.”

In more normal times, this announcement might be the subject of today’s Daily Article. Or we could focus on former President Barack Obama’s report yesterday that he has tested positive for COVID-19. Or we could discuss the opening of baseball’s spring training, the NCAA basketball playoffs, or a variety of other cultural stories. We might even note that today is “Pi” Day (3.14) with $3.14 sales on pizza. 

But these are not normal times. 

In fact, they may soon become dangerous on a level we have never seen. 

Why “this is a uniquely perilous moment” 

David French is a military veteran, an attorney, and one of the most perceptive cultural commentators I know. His March 12 article in the Atlantic, “This Is a Uniquely Perilous Moment,” is subtitled: “Smaller-scale tactical nuclear weapons could bring the great powers into a brutal, deadly, and unprecedented conflict.” 

He describes “tactical nuclear weapons” as “low-yield, short-range weapons that are designed for use against military targets such as enemy airfields or columns of enemy forces.” He explains that “tactical nukes can be mounted in simple gravity bombs, on rockets, or even in artillery shells.” 

According to a 2021 Congressional Research Service report, Russia possesses close to two thousand of these weapons. By contrast, the US stores roughly one hundred nuclear weapons in Europe. 

Here’s where this news becomes even more concerning: French notes that “there is considerable evidence that use of those tactical nuclear weapons is part of contemporary Russian-military planning.” He cites reports that Russia has adopted a military strategy known as “escalate to de-escalate” or “escalate to terminate.” 

Putin could use low-yield nuclear weapons to destroy key air bases throughout Europe, attack an aircraft-carrier task force, or destroy specific army bases. As French warns, Putin’s tactical weapons “make him the first opponent that NATO allies have faced since the end of the Cold War who has the raw military capability to destroy a substantial portion of NATO forces in the field.” 

Could this be what Putin meant when he warned on February 24 that countries who interfere with his invasion of Ukraine would face “consequences you have never seen”? 

“The most dangerous confrontation of all” 

The New York Times is reporting this morning that Russia has asked China for military equipment and support for its invasion of Ukraine. The longer Ukrainian forces withstand Russia’s invasion, the more desperate Putin may become. 

If he were to use tactical nuclear weapons to defeat Ukraine, given NATO’s limited tactical nuclear arsenal, would we escalate our response? French asks, “Would we risk Washington and New York to dislodge Putin from Ukraine?” 

If Putin thinks we would not, would this embolden him to use his tactical nuclear arsenal against Ukraine? 

Here’s another scenario. Russian missiles struck a military base near the border with Poland, killing at least thirty-five people. The Associated Press reports that “the attack so near a NATO member-country raised the possibility that the alliance could be drawn into the fight.” Also, Poland’s president said yesterday that the use of chemical weapons in Ukraine by Russia would “be a game changer in the whole thing.” 

If NATO forces entered the conflict and Putin responded with tactical nuclear strikes, what would come next? Again, would the US risk our cities to defend NATO forces? 

French concludes: “It’s one thing to confront a potential nuclear conflict when both sides know they’ll lose. Mutual assured destruction kept the peace even during the darkest days of the Cold War. It’s another thing entirely to confront a potential nuclear conflict when one side believes it can win. That’s the most dangerous confrontation of all, and we may be close to that now.” 

The paradoxical best way to live every day 

Dr. Lane Ogden’s outstanding paper, How to manage fear in a time of crisis, was written at my request and published on our website earlier this morning. 

Dr. Ogden is a brilliant psychologist and the person I recommend whenever someone in the Dallas area asks me to direct them to a counseling professional. His paper offers biblical reflections and practical steps you and I can take today in responding to the fears we face. His paper is so timely because the threats we face are so significant.  

In such times, the Christian faith offers a unique perspective that can empower our courage and attract others to our Lord. 

Unlike our secular friends, we know that this world is not our home: “Here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come” (Hebrews 13:14). We also know that “if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s” (Romans 14:8). 

As a result, we can face the perils of our broken world by trusting Jesus’ promise, “Everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die” (John 11:26). 

Paradoxically, the best way to live every day is to be prepared to die every day. To live with our sins confessed, our relationships healthy, and our lives fully yielded to our Lord and Master is not only the best way to die—it is the best way to live. 

The Puritan Thomas Watson warned, “Let them fear death who do not fear sin.” 

Which do you fear today?

Denison Forum